Re: [PATCH V4 13/27] ublk: add batch I/O dispatch infrastructure

Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-12-01T17:37:40Z

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:32 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:24:12AM -0800, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 6:00 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add infrastructure for delivering I/O commands to ublk server in batches,
> > > preparing for the upcoming UBLK_U_IO_FETCH_IO_CMDS feature.
> > >
> > > Key components:
> > >
> > > - struct ublk_batch_fcmd: Represents a batch fetch uring_cmd that will
> > > receive multiple I/O tags in a single operation, using io_uring's
> > > multishot command for efficient ublk IO delivery.
> > >
> > > - ublk_batch_dispatch(): Batch version of ublk_dispatch_req() that:
> > > * Pulls multiple request tags from the events FIFO (lock-free reader)
> > > * Prepares each I/O for delivery (including auto buffer registration)
> > > * Delivers tags to userspace via single uring_cmd notification
> > > * Handles partial failures by restoring undelivered tags to FIFO
> > >
> > > The batch approach significantly reduces notification overhead by aggregating
> > > multiple I/O completions into single uring_cmd, while maintaining the same
> > > I/O processing semantics as individual operations.
> > >
> > > Error handling ensures system consistency: if buffer selection or CQE
> > > posting fails, undelivered tags are restored to the FIFO for retry,
> > > meantime IO state has to be restored.
> > >
> > > This runs in task work context, scheduled via io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task()
> > > or called directly from ->uring_cmd(), enabling efficient batch processing
> > > without blocking the I/O submission path.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 189 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 189 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > index 6ff284243630..cc9c92d97349 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > @@ -91,6 +91,12 @@
> > > UBLK_BATCH_F_HAS_BUF_ADDR | \
> > > UBLK_BATCH_F_AUTO_BUF_REG_FALLBACK)
> > >
> > > +/* ublk batch fetch uring_cmd */
> > > +struct ublk_batch_fcmd {
> >
> > I would prefer "fetch_cmd" instead of "fcmd" for clarity
> >
> > > + struct io_uring_cmd *cmd;
> > > + unsigned short buf_group;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > struct ublk_uring_cmd_pdu {
> > > /*
> > > * Store requests in same batch temporarily for queuing them to
> > > @@ -168,6 +174,9 @@ struct ublk_batch_io_data {
> > > */
> > > #define UBLK_REFCOUNT_INIT (REFCOUNT_MAX / 2)
> > >
> > > +/* used for UBLK_F_BATCH_IO only */
> > > +#define UBLK_BATCH_IO_UNUSED_TAG ((unsigned short)-1)
> > > +
> > > union ublk_io_buf {
> > > __u64 addr;
> > > struct ublk_auto_buf_reg auto_reg;
> > > @@ -616,6 +625,32 @@ static wait_queue_head_t ublk_idr_wq; /* wait until one idr is freed */
> > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(ublk_ctl_mutex);
> > >
> > >
> > > +static void ublk_batch_deinit_fetch_buf(const struct ublk_batch_io_data *data,
> > > + struct ublk_batch_fcmd *fcmd,
> > > + int res)
> > > +{
> > > + io_uring_cmd_done(fcmd->cmd, res, data->issue_flags);
> > > + fcmd->cmd = NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ublk_batch_fetch_post_cqe(struct ublk_batch_fcmd *fcmd,
> > > + struct io_br_sel *sel,
> > > + unsigned int issue_flags)
> > > +{
> > > + if (io_uring_mshot_cmd_post_cqe(fcmd->cmd, sel, issue_flags))
> > > + return -ENOBUFS;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static ssize_t ublk_batch_copy_io_tags(struct ublk_batch_fcmd *fcmd,
> > > + void __user *buf, const u16 *tag_buf,
> > > + unsigned int len)
> > > +{
> > > + if (copy_to_user(buf, tag_buf, len))
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > + return len;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #define UBLK_MAX_UBLKS UBLK_MINORS
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -1378,6 +1413,160 @@ static void ublk_dispatch_req(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static bool __ublk_batch_prep_dispatch(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > + const struct ublk_batch_io_data *data,
> > > + unsigned short tag)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ublk_device *ub = data->ub;
> > > + struct ublk_io *io = &ubq->ios[tag];
> > > + struct request *req = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(ub->tag_set.tags[ubq->q_id], tag);
> > > + enum auto_buf_reg_res res = AUTO_BUF_REG_FALLBACK;
> > > + struct io_uring_cmd *cmd = data->cmd;
> > > +
> > > + if (!ublk_start_io(ubq, req, io))
> >
> > This doesn't look correct for UBLK_F_NEED_GET_DATA. If that's not
> > supported in batch mode, then it should probably be disallowed when
> > creating a batch-mode ublk device. The ublk_need_get_data() check in
> > ublk_batch_commit_io_check() could also be dropped.
>
> OK.
>
> BTW UBLK_F_NEED_GET_DATA isn't necessary any more since user copy.
>
> It is only for handling WRITE io command, and ublk server can copy data to
> new buffer by user copy.
>
> >
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (ublk_support_auto_buf_reg(ubq) && ublk_rq_has_data(req))
> > > + res = __ublk_do_auto_buf_reg(ubq, req, io, cmd,
> > > + data->issue_flags);
> >
> > __ublk_do_auto_buf_reg() reads io->buf.auto_reg. That seems racy
> > without holding the io spinlock.
>
> The io lock isn't needed. Now the io state is guaranteed to be ACTIVE,
> so UBLK_U_IO_COMMIT_IO_CMDS can't commit anything for this io.

Makes sense.

Thanks,
Caleb

>
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (res == AUTO_BUF_REG_FAIL)
> > > + return false;
> >
> > Could be moved into the if (ublk_support_auto_buf_reg(ubq) &&
> > ublk_rq_has_data(req)) statement since it won't be true otherwise?
>
> OK.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + ublk_io_lock(io);
> > > + ublk_prep_auto_buf_reg_io(ubq, req, io, cmd, res);
> > > + ublk_io_unlock(io);
> > > +
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool ublk_batch_prep_dispatch(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > + const struct ublk_batch_io_data *data,
> > > + unsigned short *tag_buf,
> > > + unsigned int len)
> > > +{
> > > + bool has_unused = false;
> > > + int i;
> >
> > unsigned?
> >
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 1) {
> >
> > i++?
> >
> > > + unsigned short tag = tag_buf[i];
> > > +
> > > + if (!__ublk_batch_prep_dispatch(ubq, data, tag)) {
> > > + tag_buf[i] = UBLK_BATCH_IO_UNUSED_TAG;
> > > + has_unused = true;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return has_unused;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Filter out UBLK_BATCH_IO_UNUSED_TAG entries from tag_buf.
> > > + * Returns the new length after filtering.
> > > + */
> > > +static unsigned int ublk_filter_unused_tags(unsigned short *tag_buf,
> > > + unsigned int len)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int i, j;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < len; i++) {
> > > + if (tag_buf[i] != UBLK_BATCH_IO_UNUSED_TAG) {
> > > + if (i != j)
> > > + tag_buf[j] = tag_buf[i];
> > > + j++;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return j;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define MAX_NR_TAG 128
> > > +static int __ublk_batch_dispatch(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > + const struct ublk_batch_io_data *data,
> > > + struct ublk_batch_fcmd *fcmd)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned short tag_buf[MAX_NR_TAG];
> > > + struct io_br_sel sel;
> > > + size_t len = 0;
> > > + bool needs_filter;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + sel = io_uring_cmd_buffer_select(fcmd->cmd, fcmd->buf_group, &len,
> > > + data->issue_flags);
> > > + if (sel.val < 0)
> > > + return sel.val;
> > > + if (!sel.addr)
> > > + return -ENOBUFS;
> > > +
> > > + /* single reader needn't lock and sizeof(kfifo element) is 2 bytes */
> > > + len = min(len, sizeof(tag_buf)) / 2;
> >
> > sizeof(unsigned short) instead of 2?
>
> OK
>
> >
> > > + len = kfifo_out(&ubq->evts_fifo, tag_buf, len);
> > > +
> > > + needs_filter = ublk_batch_prep_dispatch(ubq, data, tag_buf, len);
> > > + /* Filter out unused tags before posting to userspace */
> > > + if (unlikely(needs_filter)) {
> > > + int new_len = ublk_filter_unused_tags(tag_buf, len);
> > > +
> > > + if (!new_len)
> > > + return len;
> >
> > Is the purpose of this return value just to make ublk_batch_dispatch()
> > retry __ublk_batch_dispatch()? Otherwise, it seems like a strange
> > value to return.
>
> If `new_len` becomes zero, it means all these requests are handled already,
> either fail or requeue, so return `len` to tell the caller to move on. I
> can comment this behavior.
>
> >
> > Also, shouldn't this path release the selected buffer to avoid leaking it?
>
> Good catch, but io_kbuf_recycle() isn't exported, we may have to call
> io_uring_mshot_cmd_post_cqe() by zeroing sel->val.
>
> >
> > > + len = new_len;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + sel.val = ublk_batch_copy_io_tags(fcmd, sel.addr, tag_buf, len * 2);
> >
> > sizeof(unsigned short)?
>
> OK
>
> >
> > > + ret = ublk_batch_fetch_post_cqe(fcmd, &sel, data->issue_flags);
> > > + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> > > + int i, res;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Undo prep state for all IOs since userspace never received them.
> > > + * This restores IOs to pre-prepared state so they can be cleanly
> > > + * re-prepared when tags are pulled from FIFO again.
> > > + */
> > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> > > + struct ublk_io *io = &ubq->ios[tag_buf[i]];
> > > + int index = -1;
> > > +
> > > + ublk_io_lock(io);
> > > + if (io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_AUTO_BUF_REG)
> > > + index = io->buf.auto_reg.index;
> >
> > This is missing the io->buf_ctx_handle == io_uring_cmd_ctx_handle(cmd)
> > check from ublk_handle_auto_buf_reg().
>
> As you replied, it isn't needed because it is the same multishot command
> for registering bvec buf.
>
> >
> > > + io->flags &= ~(UBLK_IO_FLAG_OWNED_BY_SRV | UBLK_IO_FLAG_AUTO_BUF_REG);
> > > + io->flags |= UBLK_IO_FLAG_ACTIVE;
> > > + ublk_io_unlock(io);
> > > +
> > > + if (index != -1)
> > > + io_buffer_unregister_bvec(data->cmd, index,
> > > + data->issue_flags);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + res = kfifo_in_spinlocked_noirqsave(&ubq->evts_fifo,
> > > + tag_buf, len, &ubq->evts_lock);
> > > +
> > > + pr_warn("%s: copy tags or post CQE failure, move back "
> > > + "tags(%d %zu) ret %d\n", __func__, res, len,
> > > + ret);
> > > + }
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static __maybe_unused int
> >
> > The return value looks completely unused. Just return void instead?
>
> Yes, looks it is removed in following patch.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>